The same standard on every site
The standard lives on the model, not in any one plant.
The same machine runs in Berlin, Munich and Lyon, and each site has its own version of how to fix it. Norlan keeps one, attached to the model, written by the plant that solved it and approved by a person — and keeps the exception on the one unit that really is different, where a corporate procedure would have flattened it.
Checkweigher CW-500
Installed base · Berlin and Munich
M. Keller · Munich · 06:05
Weights drifting since start-up. Static check is fine, it only goes off with the belt running.
The unit of the standard
Written once for the model. Reaches every identical machine, in every site.
Norlan groups the installed base by model wherever the equipment is, so a guide, a field note or a validated cause is attached to the model and every unit has it from the day it is imported — the next line, the other site, the one arriving next year. The fix found on unit three in Berlin is what the technician in Lyon gets cited on unit nine, without anyone in Berlin writing an email about it.
- Guides, field notes and validated causes live on the model, not on the site
- A new unit inherits everything the model knows the day it is imported
- The assistant answers from every unit of the model, in every plant of the group
S2-PK-L4-0092 · Munich
Checkweigher CW-500 · one of eight units
From the model · every unit has it
Weighs every portion in motion and rejects anything out of range. Drift after pressure washing usually means brine under the load cell: clean before recalibrating.
This unit only
Mounted on a vibration-damping base after the 2024 retrofit, with the digital filter at 7. Above 60 packs a minute it needs the belt tension checked first.
Where the exception belongs
One unit is different. The standard does not pretend otherwise.
The retrofit on the Munich line, the unit fed from a different silo, the one that runs at a lower speed since the gearbox swap: a corporate procedure has to ignore them or fork. Norlan pins the exception to the unit it is true for. The model keeps the common version, the odd unit keeps its own, and nobody else sees the difference until they are standing at that machine.
- The exception is pinned to the unit; the model keeps the common version
- Visible only on that unit's record, cited only when that unit is asked
- When the retrofit spreads to other units, the exception becomes the standard
Head shaft seal replacement
Guide · v3 · T. Walker, 2 days ago
Applies to
Rotary filler RF-880
2 units · Berlin Line 2, Munich Line 1
Material and spares
- Seal 32×47×8 NBR · 4 in stock1
- Copper washer M8 · 60 in stock2
Who can see it
Maintenance only · 5 people
Last opened by L. Costa, 2 h ago
Versions
v32 days ago · T. Walker
Warning about the centering pins when removing the housing
v23 weeks ago · N. Bermúdez
Torque corrected to 12 N·m ± 1
v112 Jun · T. Walker
First version, drafted from thread #1234
Which way it travels
Up from the plant that solved it. Approved by a person. Dictated by none.
Most multi-site tools ship best practice downwards: one plant, or a central team, writes it and the others comply. Norlan works the other way round, because the knowledge is wherever the failure was last solved. That plant's closure becomes the draft; whoever leads maintenance approves it; the other plants get it as a versioned guide with the author's name, not as a memo. And the next time it is a different plant that finds the better fix, the guide gets a new version from there. The group sees which plants close with a cause and which still work from memory — and that is the standard worth managing.
- The draft comes from the closure, in the plant that did the work
- Approved once, by a named person; versioned and superseded, never deleted
- The group sees closure quality by plant and line, read from the record
Control room
All locations · last 12 months
Incidents in the period
Corrective work orders, per month
34
corrective — 5 in the last month, the most of the year
Corrective vs preventive
How much of the work was planned
38 %
planned — 21 preventive against 34 corrective
By line
- Line 2 · Berlin31
- Line 1 · Berlin14
- Line 3 · Munich7
- Line 1 · Lyon3
Both from the work orders the CMMS already holds. Open incidents do not depend on the period: they are open today.
Where the line is today
Norlan does not translate, and does not rank plants.
Technicians write in their own words and Norlan tidies them, but there is no automatic translation between sites in different languages yet. There is no network with other companies' plants: a fix travels to the group's other sites and to nobody else's. And there is no league table of sites — closure quality is shown so a manager can act on a line, not so one plant can be ranked against another.
Questions about several sites
Our sites run the same model but not the same configuration. Does that break it?
Does one plant write the standard for the others?
Do our plants see each other's threads?
Our sites work in different languages. Does that work?
How disruptive is deployment?
Book a demo
Bring a model that runs in more than one plant. We will show what the sites could already be sharing.
We start with the operation — which failures repeat, who gets called when something breaks, what the CMMS does not hold — and then show how Norlan would work on it.
What we usually cover
- How an incident flows today, from detection to fix
- Where the conversation actually happens: the systems, or calls and WhatsApp
- What takes longer — the diagnosis, or getting the right people and information together
- How much of what a technician knows is written down, and what happens when they are away
- Which tools are really in play: CMMS, ERP, mobile, paper
- What a pilot would measure, and how
Pick a time that suits the plant. Bring one failure that keeps coming back.
The call is with the people who build the product, with no qualification call first. Norlan is pre-general-availability and shaped with maintenance teams in pharma and food processing.